Signet Essay Contest Winner 2016: Elizabeth Ash

Authors control their characters’ actions, though good books can make readers forget that. In Little Women, author Louisa May Alcott decided that Jo should reject Laurie not because of their incompatibly strong wills, but because Jo’s fierce independence meant ladylike Amy was a better partner for Laurie. Alcott’s choice spurred character growth and gave the plot substance.

Traditionally, readers say that Jo rejects Laurie because of their similar tempers. Jo says “Laurie and I are both so proud, it’s hard to beg pardon,” after their first quarrel, and Marmee echoes these sentiments when Jo refuses Laurie’s proposal (188). However, both Jo and Laurie overcome their pride and forgive each other a few hours after arguing. Later, when they fight about Mr. Brooke, Jo manages both Laurie’s and Mr. Laurence’s tempers (232-8). In fact, argumentative banter like Jo and Laurie’s often turns into romance in other novels, such as Pride and Prejudice. Accordingly, Jo’s rejection of Laurie due to strong wills does not make sense. Jo and Laurie’s prideful standoffs are hardly unique; Meg and John Brooke each refuse to apologize first when they argue about visitors (311). Additionally, Amy—with a will to match Jo’s—orders Laurie about (423, 429). In light of other stormy tempers within Little Women, Jo—and Alcott, on Jo’s behalf—did not reject Laurie based on quarreling alone.

Instead, Alcott paired Amy with Laurie because of character temperaments. Alcott presents Amy as a foil to Jo and juxtaposes them through their frequent arguments. Alcott characterizes Jo as a tomboy. Jo flouts fashion with big hats, prides herself on independence, and roughhouses with Laurie and his friends. Jo even says she wishes to be a boy (225). Amy, on the other hand, behaves daintily: “Everybody liked her, for among her good gifts was tact. She had an instinctive sense of what was pleasing and proper” (286). Alcott also portrays Amy as more feminine than Jo: “[The boys] all liked Jo immensely, but never fell in love with her, though very few escaped without paying the tribute of a sentimental sigh or two at Amy’s shrine” (266). Finally, Amy’s refined manner suits Laurie’s life in high-class society better than Jo’s unpolished behavior. Amy, “fond of delicate fare,” loves to make calls and attend balls (129). In contrast, Jo balks at visiting neighbors and “couldn’t bear a rich husband” (533). Amy’s ladylike behavior makes her better prepared for life with Laurie.

Even Laurie’s lifestyle suits Amy, Alcott’s intimate portrayal of Jo and Laurie’s friendship makes readers wonder why they did not marry. During their childhood, Laurie favors Jo over all the March sisters. The two skate, perform plays, and create mischief together. The abrupt transition of Laurie’s affections—given his close friendship with Jo—hints that Alcott had motivations beyond her characters’ (and readers’) immediate happiness. Alcott wanted a less predictable story arc with internal character growth. By replacing Jo with Amy, Alcott shows how Laurie matured and moved past his unrequited love for Jo. Amy’s companionship forces “Lazy Laurence” to stop moping around and consider his work ethic. After Laurie and Amy’s marriage, Jo smiles to see him “changing very fast into [a] man” (496). Similarly, Laurie helps Amy transform her priorities about money and marriage: “…she found that something more than money and position was needed to satisfy the new longing that filled her heart so full of tender hopes and fears” (472). In contrast, Jo and Laurie’s marriage would have seemed like a cliché and anticlimactic continuation of friendship. Thus, Alcott used Jo’s refusal to develop Laurie and Amy as characters.

Furthermore, while Amy delights in simply being Laurie’s wife, Jo wants more purpose and independence. Unlike other girls, Jo eschews romance, declaring it “nonsense,” and she does not flirt (224). Instead of playing house with dolls, Jo slaves over manuscripts; she aspires to write professionally: “I think I shall write books, and get rich and famous: that would suit me, so that is my favorite dream” (159). Self-reliant Jo prides herself on earning a living by writing: “I doubt if half a million would have given more real happiness than did the little sum that came to [Jo because of her stories]” (295). Though Jo eventually gets married, her marriage to Mr. Bhaer is much different than Amy’s marriage with Laurie. Amy dotes on her husband (“It was not only a pleasure, but a duty to answer [Laurie’s letters], for the poor fellow was forlorn, and needed petting, since Jo persisted in being stonyhearted”) and lives a sedentary life caring for her family (473). On the other hand, Jo continues to write and founds a school with Mr. Bhaer. If she had married Laurie, Jo would have compromised her independence for a stereotypical life defined by marriage and motherhood.

Alcott—not the characters—decided that Amy and Laurie should wed in order to emphasize character growth in Little Women. Jo had to refuse Laurie not because of their strong wills, but because Jo would have lost her independence—and very essence—in such a marriage. Alcott’s choice of Amy, Jo’s genteel foil, created a more fulfilling story arc. So don’t blame Jo or fate for Jo’s rejection of Laurie. It was Alcott’s idea—and Jo, Laurie, and Amy mature into richer characters as a result.